I see us becoming master's of the solar system, mining the gas giants for fusion fuel to make anti-matter, and then using anti-matter as an energy storage mechanism to go to the stars.

How bout you?

5/29/2008 1:08:23 PM

I see us setting up something on the moon before the world ends.

5/29/2008 1:09:04 PM

i dont really see much changing....i mean its not gonna be til like 2020 when we go to the moon again...hear its not gonna be til 2030 that we could land someone on mars...dont know how far into the future you are looking though

5/29/2008 1:13:21 PM

i see that chit chat lost its thread

5/29/2008 1:15:03 PM

oh, i'm soryy

MANKIND'S FUTURE OMG WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Quote :

"OmarBadu zidik 19481 Posts user info edit post i see that chit chat lost its thread"

...

there, is it more soapbox for ya?

5/29/2008 1:18:30 PM

Quote :

"i dont really see much changing....i mean its not gonna be til like 2020 when we go to the moon again...hear its not gonna be til 2030 that we could land someone on mars...dont know how far into the future you are looking though"

oh, you know

all the way

5/29/2008 1:19:17 PM

roads? where we are going we dont need...roads.

5/29/2008 1:20:47 PM

man steven speilburg sure is a lying sack of crap...

5/29/2008 1:23:49 PM

come on

someone cyberpunk it out for me already

5/29/2008 1:25:28 PM

The original post sounds good to me, though solar power could be more important. Stars are the ultimate fusion power plants. Why not build a Dyson swarm?

5/29/2008 2:09:58 PM

sounds okly dokly to me

stellar engineering projects are the heat

5/29/2008 2:16:22 PM

maybe one day we can find out what this is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor

5/29/2008 2:41:18 PM

^ Sha Ka Ree

I agree with the first post completely. I also feel that we need a newer generation of propulsion that's more efficient than what we have now.

Also, as soon as I read the first post I knew that GoldenViper was going to nut himself when he saw that we finally have a topic about future technology.

5/29/2008 2:47:54 PM

the next step has to be all about the space elevator

amirite?

5/29/2008 2:49:16 PM

That's one of the better ideas out there.

Two things that piss me off about the shuttle:

1) They get the main fuel tank 98% to orbit, then cut it loose and let it burn up. If they had made it slightly larger they could have gotten it into a stable orbit and had 25 tons of aluminum alloy in space waiting to be used. When you multiply that by the 122 missions that have been flown it really adds up. I'm amazed that none were utilized as wet workshops for the ISS.

2) It was never made to go further than Earth orbit. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like you would be able to fit a modified Apollo style lander in the cargo bay and go to the moon whenever the hell you wanted to. But nah, lets go ahead and make the shuttle capable of only low orbit.

5/29/2008 3:09:42 PM

other things we could do with carbon nanotubes >> space elevator

5/29/2008 3:10:14 PM

Quote :

"1) They get the main fuel tank 98% to orbit, then cut it loose and let it burn up. If they had made it slightly larger they could have gotten it into a stable orbit and had 25 tons of aluminum alloy in space waiting to be used. When you multiply that by the 122 missions that have been flown it really adds up. I'm amazed that none were utilized as wet workshops for the ISS."

I might try to find this later, but there's some youtube video that talks about this. Says NASA people originally wanted to do it that way, and you wouldn't have to deconstruct the tubes, just string them in a loop, cover up the junctions, pressurize them and spin them.

And there you go, your artificial gravity space station, for less than that damned ISS price.

5/29/2008 3:13:06 PM

We'll uncover ruins from an ancient, highly advanced race on mars, then reverse engineer our findings to provide humanity with a nearly unlimited energy supply and superluminal space travel.

Then some Turian jerk will ruin everything.

5/29/2008 3:19:53 PM

^^ Yeah, I have no idea why they didn't do that. It's not like it's a new idea. Skylab was originally designed to be a used Saturn V gas tank. Even if they didn't use them as sections for the space station we would have at least had the raw materials in orbit for later use.

[Edited on May 29, 2008 at 3:21 PM. Reason : .]

5/29/2008 3:21:41 PM

2001-esque space hotel based on used shuttle fuel tanks

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/293366.stm

5/29/2008 3:41:38 PM

Quote :

"The idea of using spent Space Shuttle fuel tanks is not new. It was once considered by Nasa as the basis for its own space station. However it was discarded as being too simple. It was possibly also seen as too commercial for an organisation that sees its role mainly in research and development."

5/29/2008 3:44:33 PM

I agree with nastoute if religion, willing ignorance, proud ignorance and blind consumerism and willing irresponsibility are vanished from the earth

5/29/2008 4:20:17 PM

we only need stability and will to move forward

assuming the environment doesn't spiral out of control...

but aside from that or some other unforeseen point failure our ascendance is assured

until the massive buttfucking we'll recieve from the inhabitants of Epsilon Eridani

5/29/2008 4:32:19 PM

Quote :

"Also, as soon as I read the first post I knew that GoldenViper was going to nut himself when he saw that we finally have a topic about future technology."

There's no evidence for this yet. My first post here was neither overly enthusiastic nor long-winded.

5/29/2008 4:32:55 PM

1) build earths first space elevator


2) build ship to start construction on moon and mars


3) build a smaller space elevator for the moon and duplicate earths elevator to land on mars

4) begin terraforming mars and colonization of moon

5) send large space mining ships to asteroids and mine them for resources

profit.

5/31/2008 8:37:47 PM

What resources do we need that asteroids have? Ideally something that would justify the fuel costs.

5/31/2008 8:39:25 PM

i hear they are packed solid with nickle and iron.

edit: i mean, grab a couple that are decent sizes (idk, the size of cuba maybe) bring it into earth or the moons orbit and mine the heck out of it for years

with such an abundance of them between mars and jupiter it wouldn't be such a drastic journey to capture a couple. and since we already have the space elevator built:

no problem dropping the material back on earth.

[Edited on May 31, 2008 at 8:48 PM. Reason : .]

5/31/2008 8:44:32 PM

I'm not sure about other metals, but it's projected that we will have mined all of the copper and gold on Earth in the next 60 years.

5/31/2008 8:47:26 PM

I don't see great shortages of nickel and iron here on Earth. If we decide to build that Dyson swarm, though, we'll need all the material we can get.

5/31/2008 8:52:19 PM

Space elevator is definitely something that would drastically reduce the costs associated with space travel.

Plus it speeds up construction of the Space Race victory condition by like 50%.

^ That idea won't even be feasible for hundreds if not thousands of years.

[Edited on May 31, 2008 at 8:56 PM. Reason : ]

5/31/2008 8:53:07 PM

good point, i'm trying to think of reasons to have a crap load of nickel at hand floating in orbit



edit: oh i remember now. now you have elements to start constructing larger spaceships that won't decay so quickly and could house humans to explore and colonize the rest of the solar system.



[Edited on May 31, 2008 at 9:04 PM. Reason : .]

5/31/2008 9:01:30 PM

Quote :

"^ That idea won't even be feasible for hundreds if not thousands of years."

I don't agree with your numbers, but it's far off, yes. That fun thing about a Dyson swarm as that you can build it incrementally.

5/31/2008 9:01:35 PM

What would you say is a reasonable timeframe to be able to start this then?

5/31/2008 9:03:25 PM

^ yeh seriously. once you have space elevators that could connect physically to the megastructure.... i could see it starting 10-20 years after that. i guess it all depends on our desperation for more energy.


i'd say the first panel of it wouldn't even get started until sometime after 2100. but i'm kind of pessimistic about it. and it would take hundreds of years to complete depending on the density and availability of strong materials.

5/31/2008 9:13:44 PM

I believe we could start with current technology. A Dyson swarm is just a bunch of solar collectors orbiting the sun. To finish it, I'm not sure. I haven't done the calculations. With decent nanotechnology and the Dyson bubble concept, a hundred year strikes me as possible. A Dyson bubble would supposedly mass around the same as the asteroid Pallas. That's far less matter to throw around than with the other designs. Don't get me wrong. Your numbers are quite reasonable. Harnessing the full power of our star would be a truly monumental endeavor.

5/31/2008 9:19:14 PM

No. There's no way that's correct.

5/31/2008 9:20:23 PM

It would depend on enthusiasm and various other factors. We wouldn't necessarily attempt to create a full sphere as quickly as possible. That would require using all the energy to expand the structure. Even a small fraction of our star's output should suffice for a while. What would you do with the 3.86E+26 joules the sun produces each second?

Taking that into account, hundreds or even thousands of years sounds plenty reasonable.

5/31/2008 9:31:26 PM

Quote :

"3) build a smaller space elevator for the moon"

Doesn't quite work that way. Since Luna has a much lower rate of rotation than Earth, you'd actually need a bigger elevator to accomplish the same thing. An elevator up to 120,000km long might be needed. On the plus side, existing, mass-produced materials like kevlar or spectra should have sufficient tensile strength for the construction of a lunar elevator, due to Luna's lower gravity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_space_elevator

I think a technology that offers more promise than elevators is the idea of building a launch loop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lofstrom_launch_loop

It's not much help for landing, but it will accelerate a payload to near escape velocity in a matter of minutes within eighty km of the Earth's surface. The advantages are that you don't have to spend days or weeks climbing up a cable through the Van Allen belts and a swarm of orbiting space junk and a launch loop can be build with existing materials and technology, although significant engineering challenges would need to be overcome.

5/31/2008 9:35:24 PM

Yeah, I was going by what that Kardashev guy says about Type 1 2 and 3 civilizations. Currently, we're Type 0 and by his calculations we wouldn't start needing a real Dyson Swarm or Dyson anything until we reach Type 2. Seeing as we're very unlikely to completely skip over Type 1 and start harvesting and using that amount of energy, construction of a Dyson anything is not likely to even begin for quite a long time. If you're going by what Kardashev says anyway.

5/31/2008 9:38:13 PM

Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: Mankind.

Basically, it's made up of two separate words- "mank" and "ind". What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.

5/31/2008 9:45:59 PM

Yeah. I was thinking in terms of theoretical minimum construction time. You might be able to do it in days if you began with enough energy. Roll into a system with vast antimatter stores, release self-replicating machines on available material, blast said material to desired locations around the star, and then let the bots convert it into solar collectors. Something like that. Assuming it's possible, you'd have to be absurdly energy wealthy to manage such a trick.

5/31/2008 9:47:33 PM

What kind of muzak will they play in the space elevator?

5/31/2008 11:02:55 PM

Earth by David Brin has been pretty accurate to this point - so I'm guessing pretty soon we start harnessing small black holes placed in the center of the Earth's core.

5/31/2008 11:11:38 PM

standing up that high looking down would probably make me want to puke a little

6/1/2008 8:42:06 AM

you people who think we'll be doing planetary mega structures any time soon have no idea where we're really at

anyways, honestly, focusing on projects like that probably isn't in our best interest

I say, get us to the point where we can flit between here and pluto (~ 5 light hours) in a relatively small amount of time (approx a couple of weeks or so = 2% the speed of light ) and we'll be able start thinking about bigger problems (going to the stars, which is where it really gets fun)

...

^
standing that high up would probably make me want to cry

[Edited on June 1, 2008 at 12:38 PM. Reason : .]

6/1/2008 12:34:56 PM

Planetary scale megastructures have the potential to make space access cheap and commonplace, but you're right, they are longer-term ideas. There's a hell of a lot that can be done right now using existing chemical and near future or resurrected past nuclear propulsion.

At $2000/oz spot price for platinum, launch costs don't have to come down too much for asteroid mining to be potentially very profitable.

It looks like a two order of magnitude reduction in cost for space access is possible with technology that has existed since the dawn the space age. The inflated cost of launches has a lot to do with NASA and the aerospace contractors fetish for overly complex technology and knee-jerk rejection of any simple, economical solutions.

A booster doesn't have to be, in principle, much more complicated than a barbecue grill and can be, in practice, less complex than an automobile.

Quickreach is a design currently under development by a company called t/Space.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/quieach2.htm

Quote :

"Air launch allowed simpler engines in the booster, which did not have to be designed to operate at both sea-level air pressure and at altitude. Launch from 7600 m altitude permitted the engines to be run at a maximum of 10 atmospheres, which in turn meant tank pressures did not to have to exceed 14 atmospheres. This in turn meant that vapor-pressure (Vapak) pressure-feed techniques could be used, as had been demonstrate on SpaceShipOne. Vapak used the inherent vapor pressure of the propellants themselves to feed them to the pressure chamber, eliminating the need for a complex pressurization and regulation system. The coaxial pintle engine design had only one moving part downstream of the fuel and oxidizer flow valves -- there were no turbopumps or pressurization systems."

Back in the 60s a fellow called Bob Traux floated a design for a rocket he called Sea Dragon.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/searagon.htm

Quote :

"Sea Dragon was an immense, sea-launched, two-stage launch vehicle designed by Robert Truax for Aerojet in 1962. It was to be capable of putting 1.2 million pounds (550 tonnes) into low Earth orbit. The concept was to achieve minimum launch costs through lower development and production costs. This meant accepting a larger booster with a lower performance propulsion system and higher stage dead weight then traditional NASA and USAF designs. ... The design was reviewed with Todd Shipyards, who concluded that it was well within their capabilities, and not too unlike making a submarine hull. 8 mm thick maraging steel was used, similar to the Aerojet 260 inch solid motor of the time. NASA Marshall gave the Aerojet designs to TRW for evaluation. TRW fully confirmed Aerojet's costs and engineering, a great surprise to both TRW and NASA."

6/1/2008 1:09:08 PM

Quote :

"The advantages are that you don't have to spend days or weeks climbing up a cable through the Van Allen belts "

why would you travel that way through van allen belts?
we will be able to just remove them by that time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiVolt

6/1/2008 10:10:53 PM

The gov't needs to eliminate the current barriers it places on private companies for space exploration; in favor of its NASA monopoly.

6/1/2008 10:20:20 PM

^ please explain these barriers...

6/1/2008 10:21:27 PM

Wait... I thought you were talking about this guy?


Future ain't looking too bright....

6/1/2008 10:29:11 PM